Petition Filed With CJI Ramana: The Supreme Court had on Friday come down heavily on Nupur Sharma, the former spokesperson of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for her remarks on Prophet Mohammed, asking her to apologize to the whole country for her remark during a television debate. A vacation bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala said her “loose tongue” has set the entire country on fire and the outcome is the unfortunate incident that occurred in Udaipur where a tailor, 48-year-old Kanhaiya Lal, was killed on June 28 by two cleaver-wielding men, Riaz Akhtari and Ghouse Mohammad who, after committing the ghastly crime posted a grisly video of the crime online.
Who filed the petition?
Later in the day, Ajay Gautham, a Delhi-based social activist, and Gau Mahasabha leader, filed a letter petition before the Chief Justice of India (CJI), NV Ramana, seeking withdrawal of “adverse remarks” made by a Supreme Court bench against suspended BJP leader Nupur Sharma. Ajay Gautham has sought CJI Ramana’s direction to withdraw the observations made by a vacation bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala so that Nupur Sharma gets a “chance for a fair trial”.
What does the petition say?
The letter petition said the comments made by a “Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice JB Pardiwala should be declared “uncalled for and withdrawn”. The petition, a copy of which has also been sent to the President, sought to highlight that after such comments by the Supreme Court judges, Nupur Sharma will be denied a fair trial adding that the judges’ remarks linking Sharma’s comment with the beheading of Kanhaiya Lal in Udaipur justified the brutal act and amounted to giving clean chit to the killers. The letter petition also sought the transfer of all the cases lodged against Sharma to Delhi.
Other observations of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has also refused to entertain Nupur Sharma’s plea to club the multiple FIRs registered over her remarks on Prophet Muhammed in a TV channel debate. Her petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue alternate remedies. Hitting out at Sharma for her arrogance, the Supreme Court said “because she is the spokesperson of a party, power has gone to her head”.
(With agency inputs)
